Source:Academic Radiology
Author(s): Jeffrey R. Hawley, Justine K. Kang-Chapman, Sarah E. Bonnet, Amy L. Kerger, Clayton R. Taylor, Barbaros S. Erdal
Rationale and ObjectivesThe role of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in evaluating palpable abnormalities has not been evaluated and its accuracy compared to 2D mammography is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate combined 2D mammography, DBT, and ultrasound (US) at palpable sites.Materials and MethodsTwo breast imagers reviewed blinded consecutive cases with combined 2D mammograms and DBT examinations performed for palpable complaints. By consensus, 2D and DBT findings were recorded and compared to US. Patient characteristics, demographics, subsequent workup, and outcome were recorded.ResultsA total of 229 sites in 188 patients were included, with 50 biopsies performed identifying 18 cancers. All 18 cancers were identified on 2D and US, whereas 17 cancers were identified on DBT. Cancer detection sensitivities for 2D, DBT, and US were 100.0%, 94.4%, and 100.0%. The negative predictive value, when combined with US, was 100% for both. The sensitivity and the specificity for both benign and malignant findings with 2D and DBT were 70.5% versus 75.4% (P = 0.07) and 95.3% versus 99.1% (P = 0.125). Palpable findings not identified by 2D and DBT were smaller than those identified (11.5 ± 8.3 mm vs 23.9 ± 12.8 mm, P < 0.001). Patients with dense breasts were more likely to have mammographically occult findings than patients with nondense breasts (27.4% vs 8.3%).ConclusionsDBT did not improve cancer detection over 2D or US. Both mammographic modalities failed to identify sonographically confirmed findings primarily in dense breasts. The diagnostic use of DBT at palpable sites provided limited benefit over combined 2D and US. When utilizing DBT, US should be performed to adequately characterize palpable sites.
http://ift.tt/2B57V6b
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου